User Tag List

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 1017181920
Results 286 to 296 of 296

Thread: Unconditional Election vs. Total Depravity

  1. #286
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,443
    Thanks
    24,163
    Thanked 6,836 Times in 4,294 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Then please give my your translation of Strong's H7533 - ratsats ( רָצַץ), especially the Hithpoel form as we have in this verse, to set me straight:
    Transliteration
    ratsats
    Pronunciation
    rä·tsats' (Key)
    Part of Speech
    verb
    Root Word (Etymology)
    • to crush, oppress
    • (Qal)
    • to crush, get crushed, be crushed
    • to crush, oppress (fig)
    • crushed (participle passive)
    • (Niphal) to be crushed, be broken
    • (Piel)
    • to crush in pieces
    • to grievously oppress (fig)
    • (Poel) to oppress (fig)
    • (Hiphil) to crush
    • (Hithpoel) to crush each other
    ...and it was GOD who told us that they were fighting because of who was to serve who...
    Strong's h7533

    - Lexical: רָצַץ
    - Transliteration: ratsats
    - Part of Speech: Verb
    - Phonetic Spelling: raw-tsats'
    - Definition: crushed.
    - Origin: A primitive root; to crack in pieces, literally or figuratively.
    - Usage: break, bruise, crush, discourage, oppress, struggle together.
    - Translated as (count): and oppressed (2), broken (2), did break (2), A bruised (1), and all to broke (1), and be broken (1), and broken (1), and crushed (1), And struggled together (1), be discouraged (1), bruised (1), have I oppressed (1), he has oppressed (1), oppressed us (1), that crush (1), to let the oppressed (1).


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Grosnick Marowbe (October 27th, 2018),Tambora (October 28th, 2018)

  3. #287
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Strong's h7533

    - Lexical: רָצַץ
    - Transliteration: ratsats
    - Definition: crushed.
    - Origin: A primitive root; to crack in pieces, literally or figuratively.


    - Translated as (count): and oppressed (2), broken (2), did break (2), A bruised (1), and all to broke (1), and be broken (1), and broken (1), and crushed (1), And struggled together (1), be discouraged (1), bruised (1), have I oppressed (1), he has oppressed (1), oppressed us (1), that crush (1), to let the oppressed (1).
    Have a look at https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7533&t=KJV Gen 25:22

    and note the that English translations are notorious for following the orthodox bias.The Hebrew says to crush or crack in pieces...it is used to refer to all the other weaker English words that deny the sinfulness of the twins.

    Ie it is driven BY THEOLOGY, not giving rise to doctrine.
    Last edited by ttruscott; October 27th, 2018 at 04:24 PM.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  4. #288
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,443
    Thanks
    24,163
    Thanked 6,836 Times in 4,294 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Have a look at https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7533&t=KJV Gen 25:22 and note the that English translations are notorious for following the orthodox bias.
    So? If you don't like how the english versions translate it, you should write your own, and make sure that you don't make any errors.

    The Hebrew says to crush or crack in pieces...it is used to refer to all the other weaker English words that deny the sinfulness of the twins.-

    Ie it is driven BY THEOLOGY, not giving rise to doctrine.
    Clearly the twins did not break each other into pieces.

    So what's your point? Seems like you're nitpicking.

    A few points about this passage (which includes the previous verse and next two verses as well).

    Rebekah was barren.
    Isaac pleaded with God, and he opened her womb.
    Rebekah apparently didn't realize she had twins in her womb (verse 24), which is why she didn't understand the turmoil (both literal and figurative) in her womb.
    God calls the twins "nations." This fits, as many times in the Bible, things are referred to by the first part (eg pregnancy is called conception, a nation is called by its head, tribes are called by their heads, etc).

    The next verse makes the struggling clear.

    Yes, the two boys were literally fighting in the womb. But notice how God describes it:

    And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.” - Genesis 25:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

    Which is why several centuries later, Paul writes:

    And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” - Romans 9:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

    Remember what I said about things being called by their first part?

    That's exactly what Paul is saying here.

    "Jacob (the nation of Israel) I have loved, but Esau (the nation of Esau) I have hated."

    Oh, and there's a Hebrew idiom at play here as well.

    "To love and hate" is an idiom that means to love more and to love.

    So when God says the nation of Israel I have loved and the nation of Esau I have hated, He's not saying that He hated or didn't love the nation of Esau. He's saying that He loved the nation of Israel so much that by comparison it was as if He hated the nation of Esau. Get it?

  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Clete (November 8th, 2018),glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),Grosnick Marowbe (October 29th, 2018),Right Divider (October 29th, 2018),Tambora (November 9th, 2018)

  6. #289
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,046
    Thanks
    450
    Thanked 5,652 Times in 3,102 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Have a look at https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7533&t=KJV Gen 25:22

    and note the that English translations are notorious for following the orthodox bias.The Hebrew says to crush or crack in pieces...it is used to refer to all the other weaker English words that deny the sinfulness of the twins.

    Ie it is driven BY THEOLOGY, not giving rise to doctrine.
    This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read! (Well, no - there is that Flat Earth thread.)


    It was the Spirit of God through the Apostle Paul who wrote of those two unborn children...

    Romans 9:11a (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil...

    "mēde prassō tis agathos ē kakos"

    Mēde (Strong's 3366):
    The KJV translates Strong's G3366 in the following manner: neither (32x), nor (18x), not (3x), nor yet (1x), not once (1x), no not (1x), not so much as (1x).

    Prassō (Strong's G4238)
    The KJV translates Strong's G4238 in the following manner: do (28x), commit (5x), exact (1x), require (1x), deed (1x), keep (1x), use arts (1x).

    Agathos (Strong's g18):
    The KJV translates Strong's G18 in the following manner: good (77x), good thing (14x), that which is good (with G3588) (8x), the thing which is good (with G3588) (1x), well (1x), benefit (1x).

    Kakos (Strong's g2556):
    The KJV translates Strong's G2556 in the following manner: evil (40x), evil things (3x), harm (2x), that which is evil (with G3458) (2x), wicked (1x), ill (1x), bad (1x), noisome (1x).



    So, does this "orthodox bias" exist in the New Testament Greek as well as in the Hebrew or are you just so hideously wrong that it's embarrassing?


    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),JudgeRightly (November 8th, 2018),Right Divider (November 8th, 2018),Tambora (November 9th, 2018)

  8. #290
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    So, does this "orthodox bias" exist in the New Testament Greek as well as in the Hebrew or are you just so hideously wrong that it's embarrassing? Clete
    Not in the writings no but in the interpretation of them, yes.

    Consider:
    that Paul knew the word ratsats, רָצַץ meant
    Strong’s H7533 - ratsats, רָצַץ
    • to crush, oppress
    • (Qal)
    • to crush, get crushed, be crushed
    • to crush, oppress (fig)
    • crushed (participle passive)
    • (Niphal) to be crushed, be broken
    • (Piel)
    • to crush in pieces
    • to grievously oppress (fig)
    • (Poel) to oppress (fig)
    • (Hiphil) to crush
    • (Hithpoel) to crush each other - this is the word form used in Genesis 25:22
    (even though the KJV removed all such inferences due to their need to keep our pre-existence out of the bible) so he knew they were being sinful in the womb. By saying that their election had nothing to do with their good or bad works as they were sinless when elected, Romans 9:11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, when he knew they were not sinless implies that he was pointedly referring to their not yet having sinned after their birth which must imply that their not having sinned at all must have been before they became sinners on earth, ie in the spirit world, pre-earth or Paul was lying...


    - Paul says they were elected before they became sinners so their election had nothing to do with their earthly works, but only GOD's choice
    - but they were murderous in the womb, trying to do murderous works
    - therefore the phrase "not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil" either means he was lying about them not doing any evil works yet OR he was subtly referring to the time before their conception before they sinned by choosing evil without giving away the secret or our pre-earth existence.

    PCE contends that those who put their faith in YHWH before they ever sinned were elected to be HIS bride in the heavenly marriage and though they lost their faith when they chose to sin, HE fulfilled his election promise to redeem them by having them sown into the world by the Son of Man, giving them predestined lives to live on earth to bring them back to HIM and their first faith...as typified in the
    story of the prodigal son. If this is true, what Paul wrote makes sense without changing the meaning of what was written, and so does GOD telling Rebecca that the twins were fighting over who would be first born when they could not have that knowledge in the "created on earth" theory.

    Just because there is an alternative interpretation doesn't automatically mean my interpretation must be wrong...
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  9. #291
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,046
    Thanks
    450
    Thanked 5,652 Times in 3,102 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Not in the writings no but in the interpretation of them, yes.

    Consider:
    that Paul knew the word ratsats, רָצַץ meant
    Strong’s H7533 - ratsats, רָצַץ
    • to crush, oppress
    • (Qal)
    • to crush, get crushed, be crushed
    • to crush, oppress (fig)
    • crushed (participle passive)
    • (Niphal) to be crushed, be broken
    • (Piel)
    • to crush in pieces
    • to grievously oppress (fig)
    • (Poel) to oppress (fig)
    • (Hiphil) to crush
    • (Hithpoel) to crush each other - this is the word form used in Genesis 25:22
    (even though the KJV removed all such inferences due to their need to keep our pre-existence out of the bible) so he knew they were being sinful in the womb. By saying that their election had nothing to do with their good or bad works as they were sinless when elected, Romans 9:11 for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, when he knew they were not sinless implies that he was pointedly referring to their not yet having sinned after their birth which must imply that their not having sinned at all must have been before they became sinners on earth, ie in the spirit world, pre-earth or Paul was lying...


    - Paul says they were elected before they became sinners so their election had nothing to do with their earthly works, but only GOD's choice
    - but they were murderous in the womb, trying to do murderous works
    - therefore the phrase "not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil" either means he was lying about them not doing any evil works yet OR he was subtly referring to the time before their conception before they sinned by choosing evil without giving away the secret or our pre-earth existence.

    PCE contends that those who put their faith in YHWH before they ever sinned were elected to be HIS bride in the heavenly marriage and though they lost their faith when they chose to sin, HE fulfilled his election promise to redeem them by having them sown into the world by the Son of Man, giving them predestined lives to live on earth to bring them back to HIM and their first faith...as typified in the
    story of the prodigal son. If this is true, what Paul wrote makes sense without changing the meaning of what was written, and so does GOD telling Rebecca that the twins were fighting over who would be first born when they could not have that knowledge in the "created on earth" theory.

    Just because there is an alternative interpretation doesn't automatically mean my interpretation must be wrong...
    You are a lunatic.

    I just quoted you a completely unambiguous passage from Romans that explicitly states that those two unborn babies had done no good or evil.

    DO NOT RESPOND!!!

    I will never read another syllable of anything you ever write.

    Good bye!

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),JudgeRightly (November 8th, 2018),Right Divider (November 8th, 2018),Tambora (November 9th, 2018)

  11. #292
    TOL Legend john w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Heavenly Places
    Posts
    17,439
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12,205 Times in 8,531 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147850
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Ie it is driven BY THEOLOGY, not giving rise to doctrine.
    A bible corrector, whose Calvinism/"doctrine" determines what the bible should say, to support said "doctrine," and, if it does not, he corrects the bible with Strong's, "the Greek," (fill in the blank), so that it supports his Calvinism/doctrine.


    That's rich, sport.
    Saint John W

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to john w For Your Post:

    Clete (November 9th, 2018),glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),JudgeRightly (November 8th, 2018),Right Divider (November 8th, 2018),Tambora (November 9th, 2018)

  13. #293
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,046
    Thanks
    450
    Thanked 5,652 Times in 3,102 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147760
    Quote Originally Posted by john w View Post
    A bible corrector, whose Calvinism/"doctrine" determines what the bible should say, to support said "doctrine," and, if it does not, he corrects the bible with Strong's, "the Greek," (fill in the blank), so that it supports his Calvinism/doctrine.


    That's rich, sport.
    His Calvinism should have informed him that the bible was translated precisely as God predestined it to be.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (November 9th, 2018),Tambora (November 9th, 2018)

  15. #294
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by john w View Post
    A bible corrector, whose Calvinism/"doctrine" determines what the bible should say, to support said "doctrine," and, if it does not, he corrects the bible with Strong's, "the Greek," (fill in the blank), so that it supports his Calvinism/doctrine.

    Look again, my theology is not Calvinistic as the Calvinists here will boldly tell you. Your scorn misses the mark as based upon a false premise.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  16. #295
    Over 500 post club ttruscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    634
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 37 Times in 29 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    17879
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    His Calvinism should have informed him that the bible was translated precisely as God predestined it to be.
    I have been informed by eminent Calvinists here that I should not post in the Calvinist / Arminian forum I am obviously neither. I answer I am here to try to expose the blasphemies of both and since I joined nearly 6 years ago, I am still here.

    And I happen to agree that the bible was translated precisely as God predestined it to be, including the wrong theology of the KJV to expose the vagaries of interpretation to contrasting theologies.
    I Champion GOD’s holiness:
    - GOD did not need evil so did not create evil for any reason.
    - All evil is creature-created.

    I Champion Our Free will:
    - All spirits created in HIS image had an equal ability and opportunity to choose either heaven or hell by their free will.

  17. #296
    TOL Legend john w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Heavenly Places
    Posts
    17,439
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12,205 Times in 8,531 Posts

    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147850
    Quote Originally Posted by ttruscott View Post
    Look again, my theology is not Calvinistic as the Calvinists here will boldly tell you. Your scorn misses the mark as based upon a false premise.
    Nice spam, sound byte. Weighty.


    John 3 KJV
    3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


    John 3:3 KJV....Strong's numbers indicating "the Greek" words:

    Jesus <2424> answered <611> (5662) and <2532> said <2036> (5627) unto him <846>, Verily <281>, verily <281>, I say <3004> (5719) unto thee <4671>, Except <3362> a man <5100> be born <1080> (5686) again <509>, he cannot <1410> (5736) <3756> see <1492> (5629) the kingdom <932> of God <2316>.


    I translate it as follows, employing Strong's:

    Jesus answered and bid them Amen, Amen, I tell thee, If not anything bringforth from the first he cannot perceive the kingdom of the godly.


    Nuttin' to this Strong's/"The Greek" game.


    You bible correctors taught me this-I learned it from you.
    Saint John W

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us